Pages

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Importing the Values of the Middle East. By Daniel Horowitz. Conservative Review, December 15, 2015.Horowitz:Ask any
American if they think the Middle East is a place that reflects our political,
cultural, and societal values. You will find unanimity of opinion that the
Middle East is a raunchy place to live and that they are thankful to live far
away from that bad neighborhood. Violence, sharia law, subjugation of women,
and hatred for Jews are just a few things that come to mind when conjuring up
an image of that region. Which begs the obvious question, why then should we
import the Middle East to our shores?

Just
today, all LA schools are closed due to a widespread terror threat. A young
Muslim was arrested in Harford County, MD yesterday on charges of giving
material support to ISIS, which itself comes on the heels of a slew of similar arrests over the past week. Although the government and media, once again
refuse to divulge the immigration status of this and almost every other radical
jihadist arrested by the FBI, it is clear that there are an endless number of
jihadists among us, even in rural areas such as Harford County, MD.

There
is a lot of discussion about the lack of vetting that Tafsheen Malik underwent
when applying for an immigrant visa from Pakistan. DHS prohibited their agents
from searching her social media records. But the broader problem is even if we
did “vet” their views, what do you think we would find? A love for America,
Jewish people, and democratic values? Undoubtedly, there are some individuals
yearning to escape the Middle East mentality. But take a look at the percentage
of those from selected Muslim countries who dislike Jews and/or Support Sharia
law.

Now
take a look at some of those numbers from selected countries juxtaposed with
the number of immigrants we’ve admitted since 2001.

It
doesn’t take a genius to understand that when such large numbers of immigrants
are invited from countries with such anti-democratic, anti-enlightened, and
anti-Jewish sentiments, on average we will be importing their culture, too. At
that point, it becomes a cumulative effect and a numbers game. It’s not just
about the tedious task of vetting each one individually.

As a
nation, over the past few decades, our political leadership has violated a
principle of immigration policy that was shared by all our Founders and early
leaders. They all understood that America was a better place than any other
country in the world and that many regions of the world were downright
repugnant to the values we champion. As such, they never encouraged immigration
as a mass institution because they liked the America they had conceived and
didn’t want to import the undesirable characteristics of other countries. With
that said, they welcomed individuals
of merit who would assimilate into our values system and benefit the country.

During
the debate over the Naturalization Act of
1790, Rep. Theodore Sedgwick (Federalist-MA), who served as a delegate to
the Continental Congress and later as Speaker of the House, warned that mass migration would import the values of the countries of origin. “The citizens of
America preferred this country, because it is to be preferred,” said Sedgwick.
Speaking of European immigrants who actually shared similar ancestry, Sedgwick
feared “their sensations, impregnated with prejudices of education, acquired
under monarchical and aristocratical Governments, may deprive them of that zest
for pure republicanism.” [1]

Was
Sedgwick anti-immigrant? No. And this is why he desired to admit “reputable and
worthy characters; such only were fit for the society into which they were
blended.” But it was a no brainer to him that carte blanche importation even of Europeans would result in
bringing anti-republicanism to our shores. One could only imagine what he’d say
of today’s mass migration from the Middle East.

This is
why numbers, time and origin matter in immigration. It matters how many
individuals are admitted over a short period of time and from which regions of
the world. That equation will determine whether we are importing the values of other
countries or selectively inviting meritorious immigrants to share in our values.

As it
relates to the Middle East, it should not be controversial or divisive to say
that this region represents an anathema to American values. With the successful
growth of cyber-jihad, those values are more widespread and dangerous than
ever. Liberals should certainly feel that way, given the views of these
countries towards women and homosexuals. That is why, following the dictates of
our Founders, we should be more judicious about immigration from that part of
the world than anywhere else. Yet, without the consent of the citizenry, it has
become the fastest growing source of immigration.

Any
politician who suggests that barring the values of the Middle East (not
necessarily all immigrants) is
against our values and traditions lacks a basic understanding of our values and
traditions.

[1] Annals of Congress. The Debates and
Proceedings in the Congress of the United States. “History of Congress.” 42
vols. Washington, D.C.: Gales & Seaton, 1834-56. Feb 3, 1790.

Rubio vs. Paul vs. Cruz on Foreign Policy. By CR Editors. Conservative Review, May 14, 2015.CR Editors:After
many years without a clear direction on foreign policy, Republicans are now
engaging in a robust and healthy debate over principles related to national
defense and military intervention.

Unlike
conservative domestic policy, which is clearly directed by ideological
principles of governance within the confines of the Constitution, U.S. foreign
policy is more complex and contains a broader philosophical approach. There is no single doctrine to fully dictate
the particulars of all foreign policy initiatives or questions of military
intervention. Foreign policy decisions
are ultimately governed by prudence and discernment based on the subjective
assessment of each individual conflict and how it affects the strategic
interests of America and our allies. The
aforementioned assessment must weigh the potential costs and benefits through
the prism of likely outcomes.

In
recent years, right-leaning commentators and media figures have discussed
competing foreign policy visions in broad and vacuous terms, offering false
choices between so-called neo-conservatives vs. libertarians, hawks vs. doves,
or interventionists vs. isolationists.
But these labels fail to capture the reality of the decisions America
must confront.

Most
mainstream conservatives are not Ron Paul libertarians who rule out supporting
a robust foreign policy to combat emerging threats to our strategic interests,
such as Islamic terrorism and the growing threat from Russia and China. At the same time, most conservatives (and
most Americans across the board) reject the notion that we can or should spread
democracy to the Arab world and engage in nation-building, especially in countries
that lack the building blocks of a civil society. The challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan, along
with the colossal disaster of the Arab Spring, have certainly laid waste to the
democracy project we see today in the Middle East.

Due to
the after-effects of 9/11 and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, what we are seeing
within the Republican Party are three predominant camps forming, most
prominently on display through the informal doctrines of three presidential
candidates: Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz.

THE
PAUL LIBERTARIAN CAMP

It would
probably be more accurate to ascribe the following foreign policy views to Ron
Paul rather than Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) simply because the younger Paul seems
to be “evolving” on many foreign policy issues.

At its
core, this capital “L” Libertarian view is seemingly rooted in the belief that
Islamic terrorists and terror-supporting regimes only hate America because of
endless U.S. interventions in their part of the world. Many in this camp argue
that if only the U.S. military would stop engaging in either projections of
military power or the use of soft power against them, and the U.S. would end
its overt support for Israel, America would not be facing an existential threat
from Islamic Jihad.

Not
only do the Paulites oppose any
military intervention in the Middle East, they vehemently oppose the use of
soft power and sanctions against Iran.
They also typically believe our military and defense spending are well
over the line of what is necessary to defend national security.

As Rand
Paul’s CR Presidential Profile
highlights, the lowercase “l” Libertarian view that defines Rand’s foreign
policy is best described as “realism.” Rand Paul is a staunch advocate of U.S.
sovereignty and has consistently opposed sending aid to nations hostile to the
U.S. However, Paul has exhibited questionable positions that are cause for
concern for conservatives including his support for Obama’s call for normalized
relations with communist Cuba and his opposition to new sanctions on Iran.

We must
recognize that our nation is a global leader not just because it has superior
arms, but because it has superior aims,” Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants,
intends to say. “As president, I will support the spread of economic and
political freedom, reinforce our alliances, resist efforts by large powers to
subjugate their smaller neighbors, maintain a robust commitment to transparent
and effective foreign assistance programs, and advance the rights of the
vulnerable, including women and the religious minorities that are so often
persecuted, so that the afflicted peoples of the world know the truth: the American
people hear their cries, see their suffering, and most of all, desire their
freedom.

It is
clear that Rubio feels the U.S. has a responsibility not only to combat Islamic
terror through the spread of democracy via interventions, but has an obligation
to get involved in other regional skirmishes on behalf of persecuted minorities
or bullied nations.

To that
end, Rubio has supported the Arab Spring interventions, such as the ouster of
Muammar Gaddafi. He also supports a
“boots on the ground” intervention in Syria and the arming of the Syrian rebels
along with an endless flow of foreign aid to many Arab countries and rebel
armies.

Rubio’s
CR Presidential Profile provides the
full spectrum of his foreign policy record and position on national defense. He
has made a name for himself in conservative circles as a leader on foreign
policy as a result of his calls for decisive U.S. action against the Islamic
State, his unyielding support for Israel, spearheading the passage of the
Venezuela sanctions and introducing legislation that would place further
sanctions on Iran and Russia. Unlike Senator Paul, Rubio – a Cuban-American –
sees the dangers of normalizing relations with Cuba and has been an
instrumental leader in sounding the alarm on the president’s plans. However, the profile also details his
eagerness to support involvements in civil wars that have often strengthened
Islamic groups instead of weakening them.

THE
CRUZ CAMP

To
some, Cruz appears to be charting a new course that is neither “isolationist”
nor “neo-conservative.” But in fact, he
argues that there is nothing new about his views, as they represent the
authentic Reagan approach to foreign policy – one that emphasizes ‘peace
through strength’ with robust defense, control of the seas, and effective use
of soft power, but one that also eschews endless interventions and nation
building.

The
Cruz contemporary foreign policy is rooted in the same starting point as
Rubio’s in that the threat of Jihad is viewed as the consummate challenge of
our time. However, those subscribing to
the Cruz doctrine vehemently opposed the Arab Spring interventions, not because
of isolationist sensibilities, quite the contrary, they would argue that
opposition to tossing out relatively secular dictators is the true “hawkish”
position. Cruz would contend, much like
Rand Paul, that those interventions helped strengthen the Islamic
terrorists.

The
foundation for this view is built on the premise that there are two equally
serious threats to our national security – Sunni Jihadists and Shiite terror
groups and regimes, most prominently, Iran.
As such, every foreign policy decision in the Middle East has to be
weighed against the logical outcome of how it strengthens or weakens one or
both of those threats.

In the
case of Libya, supporters of intervention swapped a nasty dictator, albeit a
man who kept the radical Islamists in check, for a power vacuum that has been
filled by ISIS and Al Qaeda.

Highlighted
in his CR Presidential Profile, Cruz’s foreign policy record is one of the most
impressive especially given his short tenure in the Senate. He has consistently
led efforts to impose stricter sanctions on Iran and Russia, is a firm
supporter of Israel, and continues to be a leader calling for the U.S. to take
action to combat terror from the Islamic State without engaging in a protracted
ground operation.

In
Iraq, Cruz recently said that the 2003 invasion and regime change, in
retrospect, was a mistake. This is
because Saddam Hussein, although a brutal dictator, was in fact the only person
who served as a counterbalance to both existential threats – Sunni Jihadists
and Iran. It is certainly clear that
Obama’s reckless pullout led to a quicker rise of ISIS and Sunni jihadists, but
it is unlikely that the Iraq story would have ever ended well regardless of
Obama’s actions. Even before Obama’s irresponsible
withdraw, Iraq had become a proxy for Iran.
Was it worth expending 4,500 of our finest soldiers plus over a trillion dollars to deliver Iraq into the hands of Iran?

Moreover, even without Obama’s pullout, it
would have been hard to stem the tide of Sunni insurgents in the face of
Iranian Shiite dominance. U.S.
“leadership” and the spread of democracy
will never hold these volatile and unstable countries together without eastern
countries standing against them and their radical Islamic terror regimes. Now
we are seeing the vacuum being filled by entities that pose a much graver
threat to us than Saddam Hussein did over a decade ago.

It is
this guiding lesson from the Iraq war that is fueling the view of the Cruz
faction that the U.S. military should stay out of the civil war taking place in
Syria and parts of Iraq. With a tangled
web of Iranian-backed Assad forces, al-Nusra, ISIS, and dubious or ineffective
“Syrian rebels” engaged in conflict, there is no good outcome for U.S.
strategic interests. With Iran and ISIS
fighting each other in Iran, why risk our lives and war chest to tip the scales
to one side, only to see that side eventually become the next volatile regime?
Why not let our two biggest enemies slug it out? It is for this reason that Cruz would oppose
any boots on the ground beyond decisive air strikes against those threatening
the Kurds or Christian minorities.

The aforementioned
view can best be described with the following doctrine: A president should only use military force if the end result will
bolster our allies and weaken our enemies, preferably when those allies have
built a civil society and have their own military for which our efforts will
result in a positive outcome and territory gained or preserved for our
allies.

But
while Cruz would take a hands-off approach to some of the Islamic civil wars,
he is as hawkish as they come on Iran.
That is because Iran represents an existential threat and is responsible
for killing more U.S. soldiers since 1979 than any other regime. And the remedy here, unlike in other
geopolitical conflicts, is not to referee a civil war and nation-build a
balkanized country; it is the effective use of soft power through sanctions,
freezing assets, control of the seas, and other covert activity at our
disposal.

This
also explains why the Cruz camp wants to bulk up our military, increase our
deterrent power and control over the seas, but save a lot of money by
refraining from endless national-building escapades that have cost the U.S.
trillions. It’s why Cruz often cites the
Reagan paradigm of increasing defense spending but never wasting money and
lives with protracted military interventions.
After all, as Cruz also frequently points out, Granada was the largest
country Reagan invaded during his tenure.

Those
subscribing to this worldview also believe that securing our border and
limiting the immigration of security threats is at least as vital, if not more
important, than any projection of power overseas. The same certainly cannot be said of the
Rubio, Graham, and McCain camp.

If
nothing else, the fact that conservatives are now debating some of the past and
present foreign policy decisions is a welcome development.A lack of coherent principles on domestic
policy has gotten Republicans into trouble in the past.Although foreign policy is more complex, it
would be wise for the party to develop some cogent principles before they
reassume power as the governing party.

Enemies. By Michael Lumish. Israel Thrives, December 14, 2015.Lumish:The
western-left refuses to stand up to the cruel bullies of political Islam.

In
doing so, the Left has abandoned women in the Muslim-Middle East, gay people in
the Muslim-Middle East, all non-Muslims in that part of the world, as well as
freedom of speech even in Europe. As a
direct consequence, as I have argued ad
nauseum, they have flushed adherence to the ideal of universal human rights
directly down the toilet.

In this
way, the progressive-left has abandoned its very reason to be because it has
abandoned the heart of its movement in favor of the multicultural ideal.

When I
think of the joyous escapades of our friends in the Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria (ISIS) – such as, for example, burying Yazidis alive in mass graves or
using young non-Muslim prepubescent girls as sexual slaves or the mass chopping
off of “infidel” heads or the destruction of ancient antiquities, such as we
recently saw in Palmyra - one word comes immediately to mind:

Enemy.

The
thing about the western-left, in general, and the American-left, as well, is
that it recognizes no such category of human being – beyond Republicans,
Evangelical Christians, or conservatives – as an enemy. They may actively and loudly despise people
such as former president George W. Bush, but they can live with the Muslim
Brotherhood or Islamic Jihad or Boko Haram.
This is because they tend to have little, or no, sense of ethical
proportionality. Sure, Boko Haram might
kidnap hundreds of young girls for the purpose of raping them and selling them
into sexual slavery but, aghghg!,
George W. Bush is a Texas Republican!

The
Left knows who their real enemy is and it is definitely neither Boko Haram, nor
the Islamic State.

I
understand, of course, that the concept of “enemy” is not a pretty one. When a people or a nation have an enemy then
their leadership is obligated to defeat that enemy. This requires a willingness to stand up, put
oneself forward, and actually do whatever is necessary to win the war. People on the Left, however, have no such inclination
unless they are spitting hatred at the likes of Dick Cheney or that heinous Zionist, Benjamin Netanyahu.

The
rise of political Islam represents the single most significant geopolitical
event since the downfall of the Soviet Union.
The crazed and vicious denizens of organizations like ISIS or Hamas
despise essential western values such as the equality of women, freedom of
speech or, even, freedom of thought, and they are perfectly happy to use even
the most horrendous forms of violence to prove it.

And,
needless to say, political Islam is the most violently anti-Semitic political
movement that we have seen in the world since the Nazis were pulling gold out
of Jewish teeth. This makes them
unequivocally my enemy and they should be the acknowledged enemy of anyone who
believes in western-liberal values... which the Left no longer does, if it ever
did.

There
are at least two important reasons why the progressive-left finds it difficult
to acknowledge groups like ISIS as an enemy.
The first is because the United States is a powerful, largely white
country, and people “of color” in the Middle East are considered underdogs and
the natural instinct is to protect the underdog even, apparently, if the
underdog is burning people alive in cages.

The
second reason is because most progressives blame the West for the rise of political
Islam due to unjust material factors imposed by Europe for centuries and by the
United States since early in the twentieth.
That is, they believe that western and American imperialism destabilized
traditional societies, subjecting them to war, poverty, and thereby encouraged
a rational hatred of the West.

There
is only one major problem with this analysis.
It infantilizes Arabs in an exceedingly bigoted and prejudicial manner
and it fails to acknowledge the linkage between strongly held religious beliefs
and behavior. ISIS, whatever else it may
be, is a religious-political movement drenched in the Salafist form of
Islam. When they say that they wish to
carry out the violent Jihad for the purpose of establishing the Caliphate, they
mean it. When they say that
head-chopping is the pleasure of Allah and that if they die in Jihad they will
go to paradise, they mean that, as well.

They
act on their beliefs and those belief are not due to the fact that sometimes
Jewish people build housing for themselves beyond the Green Line. Their beliefs are grounded in their religious
faith and the primary sources of that faith are the Qur’an and the hadiths.